Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Revisiting 9/11's 'Falling Man' photo

On this 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, many people on Twitter are revisiting what is arguably the most controversial and jarring photo from that horrific day: The Falling Man.

I won't post it directly on here, as the issue of whether it was ethical to publish this photo -- as the New York Times and countless other newspapers did -- is still debated today, and I certainly don't know the right answer. If you want to see it, Esquire has it here along with an in-depth piece about the image. But I'd say the excerpt below is enough.

They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building's fatal wound.

I can't imagine.

Update: Because I've linked to that Esquire story, I feel obliged to share this. According to Poynter, Esquire.com had the "worst 9/11 mixup imaginable" this morning. Its website had the Falling Man photo accompanying the headline: "Make Your Morning Commute More Stylish."

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is part of a broad question of what is "good taste" in journalism. At what level of detail does a news report cross over to senseless morbidity? If there is a report of a bad car accident, a picture of a crumpled car will be included, but (probably) not a picture of the badly injured driver.
I think the ability to report on an event in a truthful, objective and thought provoking way without descending into classless sensationalistic gore is what makes good journalism. This particular photo I think close to the line, and if it's not overused is still on the right side of it.

I'd actually never seen this Falling Man picture until today. At least I don't recall it from when it was published. I do recall that the news footage stopped showing the people who jumped, shortly after it started, but it was not hard to see that it was happening all the time. It is part of the story... that all those people jumped. Absolutely it's shocking and horrific, and I am not sure where the line is either with regards to these pictures.

You didn't ask me but maybe none. That doesn't make it go away. Or maybe it provides the push to fight it. We can disagree about methods but it's hard to disagree that the Taliban and Al Quada needed to be fought. In fact, it should be to our shame that we stood by when they were only being evil to others.

This picture has been so widely seen I don't really think there is much of an ethical issue in showing it. And I don't see how linking it gets you of the hook, if you think there is a hook.

ZORN REPLY -- Jessica made the right call in linking to the photo rather than posting it. That allowed those who wanted to see it or see it again to do so but didn't cause those who don't want to see it (perhaps again) to accidentally see it.
She could have, I suppose, posted a link to a google search for the picture, putting you two clicks away but I don't see the point.
There is a bit of an issue when it comes to linking to material that is patently and dramatically offensive to many people -- hate sites or hard-core porn sites -- and we do tend in such cases to let people do their own googling.

They likely jumped for the same reason that the seamstresses locked inside the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory by the capitalist bosses did. Desperation. The vain hope that something out there would save them.

I know I did not realize that day that people were jumping from the buildings, though it certainly makes sense. I cannot even imagine the jumping to certain death, just because it was more seconds away from certain death.

That said -- I don't think it should have been censored. It's part of the history of that day. It's part of the reality of that day.

I have no problem holding U.S. actions up to scrutiny and we certainly sometimes fail that scrutiny. I don't know how we gave the Taliban the means to treat Afghan girls and women the way they did, though, except possibly by knowing about it and letting it happen. I do get that it is tricky. We can't solve every problem in the world but if bad results when we take military action are cited as reason not to take military action next time, it seems only fair that bad results when we fail to act should be cited, as well.

@Buster - I did not slip past me that there is a parallel to the current Syria situation. I honestly don't know what the right approach is there. What is more concerning is that the men for whom I voted for president in the last three elections don't seem to know, either. (Before the resident conservatives start gloating, I don't think Bush and Romney would be better -- maybe different, but not better -- on this issue and would be worse on most others so I stand by my votes.)

To further Mick's point... what means did the USA give to the Taliban and Al Quada to be evil to others? They took some pilot training... enough to take off, but not land. and they hatched their plot to crash the planes into tall and crowded buildings. Anything has the capacity to be used as a weapon in the right situation. If it wasn't that plan, I would have been something else. No system, no country, no situation is 100% safe at all times. There is always some way to get around what you've put in place for safety.

No doubt the photo is horrific, and it encapsulates in a single image how truly hellish the events of that day were. What I learned new from the Esquire piece is that between 50 and 200 people jumped. The interval between the first plane hitting and the North tower falling was less than two hours, meaning that people were jumping at an average rate of between one every two minutes and one every 30 seconds. Maybe it's the mathematician in me, but that figure is far more horrifying than any one photo.

I don't think anyone should have to see the picture if they're not ready, or if they find it so shocking that they cannot think clearly afterwards. But I also don't see how we can move forward without understanding the depth of what we all experienced that day.

While I'm not agreeing with Dienne's assignment of blame, I believe she is referring to the U.S. supporting Taliban fighters when they were fighting the Soviets. When the Soviets finally gave up, it gave them the opportunity to come to power in the country.

I don't think it's unethical to show the photo. It represents the harsh reality of terrorist attacks, something we should never forget. These people were trying to escape from Hell, if by death so be it.

I think these kind of images are important, like the bloody infant corpse held in the arms of a fireman after the Oklahoma bombing; the picture of the Vietnamese girl running naked down a street, her clothes burned off her body by napalm. Shocking, yes, but important for that reason and the reasons behind their suffering before imminent death.

As to reasons for jumping, there were also reports that some people seemed to be trying to make parachutes out of their shirts. This indicates, as jlp says, that some people were hoping beyond hope that they could both jump and survive. Of course, the amazing amount of wind at that location meant that the shirts were ripped from their hands fairly quickly.

One more important thing to note is the photographer who took the Pulitzer Prize winning photo of "Napalm Girl" actually saved her life by taking her to a hospital and insisting she receive treatment. These amazing photo-journalists are not just cold-blooded observers.

Agree with Wendy C. I believe that by not showing the pictures - however horrific - the news organization is making an editorial decision on the slant of story.

Look at newsreels from WW2...there was plenty of footage of dead GIs, because it was important to stoke the fires of national rage. Not so much anymore, because, while the different administrations want support for war, the nation wouldn't stand to see dead soldiers and marines in these modern conflicts.

"I believe that by not showing the pictures - however horrific - the news organization is making an editorial decision on the slant of story."

The mainstream press does not like to show pictures like that of 9/11 because they tend to bring out patriotic (ie. Republican) sentiments. The press does not even like to remind people of who did it. Liberals like jlp above would rather rail against their preferred enemy, "capitalist bosses."

By the way . The esquire piece is about bearing witness. And the question of the importance of the man in the photo versus the importance for humanit of an "unknown soldier" for humanity. Read it. Even if you avert your eyes from the photo at the top. And consider its arguments about averting ones eyes in the first place. Consider its discussion of how we view those who jumped. It will make you think in unexpected ways.

Like ChrisH, I believe that Dienne is going back to our support of the Taliban against the Russians. But, I recall occasional (not recent) poster rwilymz (hope I got that right) noting that for every attempt to say that history started with event X, there's an event W that led up to it. We didn't support the Taliban just because we felt like it. However, we should learn; often the people that we support in that part of the world turn out to be worse than the people that they're fighting.

"If we're going to hate, we need to look to the root." - Unlike others, since this is coming from you, I will state you are making the the Reagan support of the Taliban in the 1980's directly to 9-11. That's way you think.

So can you provide a link to some articles from the 1980s that said we shouldn't support these guys against the Soviets because they might fly some planes into some of our buildings?

Once again, you don't get to pick your ideal ally all the time. Do you think FDR was thrilled with having Stalin as an ally?

To publish or not? There is no "right" answer. This is about widely varying sensibilities and any judgment call is going to be highly subjective. I wouldn't criticize any organization for publishing the photo or passing on the photo. I do think it's a good idea to tell people what their about to see. When the Daniel Pearl murder video was online, I knew some people who watched it, but I chose not to view it. As I said to a friend at the time, seeing that is a bell you can't unring. This photo isn't as distressing as that video, but it could be very upsetting for some people, so I don't think it's a bad idea to offer a warning.

“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn't do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.”

There is no doubt that there was a nearly immediate push from the left not to show frank images from 9/11 under the rationale that these would just stir up trouble and might offend ... Muslims. After carrying live coverage that showed all the horror, the networks very quickly started self-censoring. The Times and others have been jittery about the photo of the firefighters mounting the American flag because it might be jingoistic or represent harmful patriotism.
The fact that we are having a debate about the "ethics" of showing a picture, one that is anonymous and without gore and about which whole essays have been written, one that encapsulates the diaboical event, shows how squeamish liberals are about reckoning with the horror of 9/11.

" ... one that encapsulates the diaboical event, shows how squeamish liberals are about reckoning with the horror of 9/11."

Oh, give me a break. The debate is whether the widespread publication of a picture like this violates the privacy and/or is disrespectful to this man in his last horrific moments, since he has no say in the matter; and whether shock value is used to sell media as opposed to respect the tragedy.

And for the record I agree and have always agreed with the sentiment expressed by Beth that it should be published because it's part of the historical record of this atrocity. And it WAS published--it was NOT censored--it appeared in the Tribune the day after the attack and in many other sources. It is easily found and viewed by anyone without even knowing the unofficial name of the picture, and has been since the attack.

The idea that this photograph has a taboo associated with it because it "might offend Muslims" is yet another victim-delusion of the extreme right, nothing more. How utterly despicable that reactionaries continue 12 years later to flog one of the greatest tragedies in American history for their own petty obsessions.

If there was any insane squeamishness immediately after the atrocity it was from conservatives getting songs like "Imagine" pulled from the radio or the president's own spokesman saying that Americans need to "watch what they say."

And for the record, "censorship" is what the Bush administration did, ordering a photo ban on caskets of servicemen and servicewomen returning from Iraq.

Not only have liberals largely banished the horror of 911 from the media, more importantly, they have also banished it from the schools. As this column in the Washington Post says, the schools are more interested in teaching multiculturalism and tolerance:

"What should teachers be discussing with their students to mark the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks?

It may seem like a simple question, but a report just issued by the nonprofit Thomas B. Fordham Institute explains why it has become a complicated issue — and why some of the lessons being given by teachers across the country are missing the point.

Chester E. Finn Jr., the author of the introduction to the report, which is entitled “Teaching about 9/11 in 2011: What Our Children Need to Know,” writes that too many teachers are giving lessons that give short shrift to the history of the event and the way American society has changed as a result.

Instead, he said, teachers are being asked to concentrate on issues including multiculturalism and tolerance that have a role in the larger narrative but are not sufficient to tell the whole story."

"And for the record, "censorship" is what the Bush administration did, ordering a photo ban on caskets of servicemen and servicewomen returning from Iraq."

The press was sooooo obsessed about the need to show photos of the caskets of dead soldiers -- when Bush was president -- but as soon as Obama became president, the press strangely lost interest. This essentially proves my point that, the press is happy to show morbid photos if the effect of showing them is to hurt the Republicans. If the effect is to HELP the Republicans, the press suddenly becomes squeamish.

I would be very interest in how our resident liberal teacher teaches about 911. Do you teach that the hijackers acted in the name of Islam? Do you teach that they shouted "Allahu akbar" as the planes crashed into the buildings?

"Ah. OK. The reason the media publishes pictures like Falling Man and caskets of fallen American soldiers is ... to hurt Republicans."

Please read more carefully. The reason the press wants to publish photos of the caskets of dead soldiers when a Republican is president is to hurt the Republican president. The press wanted to undermine support for the Iraq War. It has not been interested in publishing photos of caskets of soldiers from the Afghanistan was since Obama has been president.

The reason the press does NOT want to publish photos of the Falling Man (it has rarely published it since 2001) is because the effect of it is to put people in a more right wing state of mind.

If you work backward from the reactionary victim point of view, you can come up with any rationale, no matter how weak, to support your worldview. Perfect example: the only reason the press would publish pictures of soldiers' caskets is ... to undermine support for the Republican administration that started the Iraq War. The reason there is a taboo associated with the picture of a Sept. 11 victim in the last moments of his life ... is actually liberals scrambling not to offend Muslims.

God almighty.

The Bush administration maintained a ban on those photos so that Americans could be prevented from understanding the real horror of the human cost of the Iraq War (forget the financial cost), and then maybe start to ask whether it's worth it--or worse, whether it was related to Sept. 11, or WMDs, which of course it was not. In that way, the photo ban was an attempt to artificially maintain support for the war--to withhold the truth. And obviously, during the highest body count periods of the war, getting those pictures was most important.

It was the obligation of the press to document that aspect of the Iraq War (or any war). Under Obama, this ban was removed.

I was pregnant with my oldest on 9/11 and my youngest kids are still in elementary school. We never felt the need to bring up 9/11 in the house but, of course, they heard about it elsewhere. If they asked, we honestly answered.

A year or two ago, my oldest heard about the people who jumped out of the buildings. She came home horrified and thought it could not be true. Seeing her cry while we talked about was another wound to 9/11.

Having the discussion about OBL being killed and the euphoria most people had was another interesting conversation with the kids.

--"Too many teachers are giving lessons that give short shrift to the history of the event and the way American society has changed as a result. Instead, he said, teachers are being asked to concentrate on issues including multiculturalism and tolerance that have a role in the larger narrative but are not sufficient to tell the whole story."

Not true at all, at least in my experience, first in CPS and now in a suburban public school district. My kids are in 7th and 8th grade and "the history of the event" has been, and continues to be, thoroughly covered. That said, multiculturalism and tolerance are also encouraged, which I don't believe in any way whitewashes or mitigates the horror of what happened 12 years ago.

OK, Kip, I take it you think it is fine to snip remarks out of context to make partisan points.

And I guess the liberal Ted Koppel is as stupid and self-pitying as me, and I suppose you would tell him so. Who knew?

"And a week after the comments in 2001, ABC's Ted Koppel featured them on his "Nightline" broadcast and concluded: "Seen in its entirety in context, it does not sound like a warning from the White House or a threat. Ari Fleischer got a bum rap on that one." "

"It’s the shock of seeing an arrogant and seemingly untouchable superpower sucker-punched on its own turf for the first time, not by another superpower but by humans as puny as we are, whose only weapon is their confounding will to die."

And you are going to tell me liberals don't hate America? This person obviously admires the hijackers

And you use the murders of thousands of Americans as an opportunity to pimp the same half-wit garbage you've been pimping for years, Jimmy G. You're a sick little rodent of a man.

Ari should have chosen his words more carefully, quotidian, particularly given his position and when he was making them--but he probably counted (correctly) on having an entire race of sad little right-wing suckups to dig him out of whatever hole he got himself into. Really nice work on the Koppel quote, though. Devastating.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.